November 27, 2007 

Ms. Florence Black 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention 

Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch 

Post Office Box 18070 

626 Cochrans Mill Road – B-140 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0295 

Re: Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order 3: Draft Report SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, 

Revision 1 of Addendum 1: Review of ORAUT-PROC-0097, Conduct of the Worker 

Outreach Program Procedure 

Dear Ms. Black: 

SC&A is pleased to submit its draft report, Review of ORAUT-PROC-0097, Conduct of the Worker 

Outreach Program Procedure, SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1, Revision 1. This addendum 

should be considered a part of Draft Report SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 forwarded to you on October 

29, 2007. 

Please note that Revision 0 of this document, a restricted version that had not been reviewed for 

Privacy Act information, was forwarded to you on November 9th . The attached Revision 1 of this 

document has been edited in accordance with the PA review and is now cleared for distribution. 

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at 732-530-0104. 

Project Manager 

cc: P. Ziemer, PhD, Board Chairperson A. Makhijani, PhD, SC&A 

Advisory Board Members H. Behling, PhD, MHP, SC&A 

L. Wade, PhD, NIOSH M. Thorne, SC&A 

L. Elliott, NIOSH H. Chmelynski, SC&A 

J. Neton, PhD, NIOSH J. Fitzgerald, Saliant 

S. Hinnefeld, NIOSH J. Lipsztein, SC&A 

L. Homoki-Titus, NIOSH K. Robertson-DeMers, CHP, Saliant 

A. Brand, NIOSH S. Ostrow, PhD, SC&A 

J. Broehm, NIOSH K. Behling, SC&A 

C. Ellison, NIOSH T. Bell, Saliant 

L. Shields, NIOSH Project File (ANIOS/003) 

D. Sundin, NIOSH 

Sincerely, 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 
Draft Report 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

TASK 3: REVIEW OF NIOSH/ORAUT PROCEDURES AND METHODS 

USED FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

Review of ORAUT-PROC-0097, 

Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program Procedure 

Contract No. 200-2004-03805 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 – Revision 1 

Prepared by 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

November 2007 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its 

deliberations. However, the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the 

time of its release, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for 

factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once 

reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, 

the reader should be cautioned that this report is for information only and that premature 

interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

2 of 35 

Document No. 

S. Cohen & Associates: Technical Support for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Effective Date: 

Draft – November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 (PA Cleared) 

Review of ORAUT-PROC-0097, Conduct of the 

Worker Outreach Program Procedure Page 2 of 35 

Supersedes: 

Task Manager: 

Rev. 1 

______________________ Date: ____________ 

Stephen F. Marschke 

Project Manager: 

______________________ Date: ____________ 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

3 of 35 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................4 

Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................4
 

Summary of Observations....................................................................................................5 

Suggestions for Improvement ..............................................................................................5 

1.0 ORAUT-PROC-0097 ― Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program .................................7 

1.1 Background Information: Worker Outreach Objectives .........................................8 

1.2 Content and Organization ........................................................................................8 

2.0 Overview of Procedure Used in the Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program.................9 

3.0 Strengths of ORAUT-PROC-0097 ....................................................................................12 

4.0 Procedure Review Checklist ..............................................................................................13 

5.0 Significant Findings Pertaining to Procedure ....................................................................18 

6.0 Observations ......................................................................................................................22 

7.0 References..........................................................................................................................23 

Attachment 1: SC&A Questions to Participating Workers...........................................................24 

Attachment 2: Worker Input to SC&A Questions on the Worker Outreach Process ...................25 

Attachment 3: Target Organizations of NIOSH/ORAUT Worker Outreach Meetings................33 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

4 of 35 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Worker Outreach Program provides opportunities for current and former workers to obtain 

information and provide input into the development of site profiles, which allows workers to 

become an active part of the adjudication of a claim. This is a partial review of the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) procedure for worker outreach and 

documentation of that outreach. The procedure reviewed here is Conduct of the Worker 

Outreach Program, ORAUT-PROC-0097, Rev. 00, December 29, 2005 (Murray 2005). 

SC&A sent a set of questions to worker outreach meeting participants, advocates, and 

representatives to determine their perspective on the worker outreach process and outcomes. 

Questions posed to the workers are available in Attachment 1. Verbatim responses from the six 

individuals responding are shown in Attachment 2. 

SC&A’s review is partial because the NIOSH/Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

(ORAUT) did not provide SC&A access to the Worker Input to Site Profile Revisions (WISPR) 

database in time for the preparation of this report. In the interim, NIOSH has provided SC&A 

personnel with access and training on the use of WISPR. Because of the timing, SC&A decided 

to finalize this review as it stood without addressing WISPR. We suggest that the degree to 

which we may need to review WISPR and any other follow-up activities be part of the closeout 

process for this report. 

The WISPR database is called out in ORAUT-OTIB-0097 as a tracking mechanism for worker 

comments. In accordance with the procedure, the database is used to ensure that responses to 

comments are developed and implemented where appropriate. The WISPR database is key to 

the evaluation of the worker outreach process and its effectiveness. Since SC&A was not able to 

obtain access to this database in time for the preparation of this report, this review is not 

complete insofar as the assessment of the effectiveness of the procedure is concerned. 

Furthermore, SC&A could not evaluate the comments made by the interviewees against the 

actual entries into the WISPR database. This evaluation is needed for a more complete 

assessment of the effectiveness of the procedure. 

SC&A awaits direction from the Board as to the next steps, if any, in the review of this 

procedure. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Finding 1: The procedure is deficient because it does not require the audiotapes of the 

outreach meetings to be archived. In addition, the audiotapes are destroyed after the 

minutes of the outreach meetings are finalized. This is a serious deficiency in the procedure 

because it limits the ability of NIOSH to resolve concerns by some workers or their 

representatives that the information provided in outreach meetings is not accurately represented 

by NIOSH/ORAUT. Minutes of the meetings are finalized after 60 days, whether or not 

responses to the draft minutes are received from workers or their representatives (PROC-0097, 

pg. 11). At this point the audiotapes are destroyed. If the minutes of the meetings are not 

accurate or complete in some essential points and the minutes are finalized without worker 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

5 of 35 

response, these worker comments are lost. The practice of destroying the audiotapes 

significantly hinders the identification and resolution of complaints by workers and site experts 

that information provided during outreach meetings was not reflected or was misrepresented in 

the site profiles. 

Finding 2: The procedure does not address follow-up discussions with particular workers 

and how these are documented. 

Finding 3: There are no provisions for soliciting comments from workers who are not able 

to physically attend meetings. 

Finding 4: The procedure seems to focus on outreach meetings with labor organizations, 

though the purpose of the meetings is to obtain worker input and inform all workers. 

Finding 5: A two-track system appears to exist for obtaining employee and site expert 

input. One track is formal, governed by ORAUT-PROC-0097, with documentation 

requirements, while the other track is informal and appears to be intended as a means to 

obtain information from site experts. The latter, under which NIOSH/ORAUT interview 

health physicists and others, does not appear to be governed by any formal procedure, at least 

none that has come to the attention of SC&A during discussion of documentation issues 

associated with site expert interviews. 

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 

(1) The procedure does not require disclosure of conflict of interest during worker meetings. 

(2) There is no provision for classified outreach meetings. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

(1) Outreach should extend beyond union representatives. It should include present and 

former workers who are not union members, including individuals who have experience 

in particular types of work at the site. The de facto two-track process—one informal for 

contacting site experts and health physicists and the other for labor organizations— 

should be revised to a procedure that includes outreach to all those individuals who could 

provide information, documentation, or expertise that could be relevant for preparing a 

site profile. This should include survivors of claimants. 

(2) NIOSH/ORAUT should send prepared questions in advance in order to enable 

participants to gauge NIOSH/ORAUT needs for information. 

(3) NIOSH/ORAUT should establish outreach criteria and procedures for sites where no site 

profile is to be prepared. 

(4) NIOSH should arrange for telephone interviews so that workers who are not able to 

physically attend worker outreach meetings can contribute to the process. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

6 of 35 

(5) The procedure should be amended to make it explicit that worker outreach meetings are 

to be conducted at all sites for which NIOSH is preparing a site profile document. 

(6) The procedure should require an affirmative sign-off on the minutes from the 

interviewees. 

(7) NIOSH should consider splitting the meeting agenda into two distinct parts—one to 

provide information about the program to claimants, including workers, and one for 

workers to provide site and other expert information to NIOSH/ORAUT. 

(8) The audiotapes should be archived in order to ensure that valuable information is not lost. 

In addition, having access to the audiotapes will help to ensure that worker concerns are 

completely and accurately captured and incorporated into the site profiles and other 

NIOSH documents. Ideally, the audio record of the interviews should be made available 

to the interviewees or their representatives, along with the draft minutes. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

7 of 35 

1.0	 ORAUT-PROC-0097 ― CONDUCT OF THE WORKER OUTREACH 

PROGRAM 

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0097, Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program, Revision 00, 

dated December 29, 2005, was prepared by Kathryn Robertson-DeMers and Arjun Makhijani. 

This report is part of SC&A’s Task Order 3, under which procedures used by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team (ORAUT), relating to dose reconstruction for energy employees and 

associated tasks are reviewed at the direction of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (Advisory Board). This report provides a review of the ORAUT procedure for 

conducting worker outreach meetings, Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program, ORAUTPROC-0097, Rev. 00, December 29, 2005 (Murray 2005). 

During the October 29, 2003, meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, the Advisory Board recommended 

that NIOSH develop a process for public and site expert participation and involvement in the 

preparation of site profiles. Furthermore, the participation was to include opportunities for input 

both prior to the publication of the site profile on the web site and participation after the initial 

publication of the document (ABRWH 2003). In response to this recommendation, and under 

the direction of NIOSH, ORAUT proposed a plan in 2004 titled Worker Outreach Program Plan 

(ORAUT-PLAN-0010, prepared by Murray and McDougall, 2004). The plan includes the 

preparation of ORAUT-PROC-0097 (Murray 2005), which describes the purpose of the 

procedure as follows: 

The program provides current and former Department of Energy (DOE) and 

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees with the opportunity to obtain 

information about site profiles and to provide information for consideration and 

possible use in dose reconstructions and Project documents. 

The processes are specified for arranging and conducting worker outreach 

meetings, preparing and distributing meeting materials, preparing minutes of 

worker outreach meetings, tracking comments and/or materials submitted by 

workers/union representatives at and after meetings (using the Worker Input to 

the Site Profile (WISPR) database) and ensuring that responses to the comments 

are developed and implemented where applicable. 

The Worker Outreach Team captures and responds to comments from former and current 

workers that may result in modifications to the site profiles and dose reconstructions. Additional 

comments that do not affect project documents but provide valuable insight are captured and 

considered in document updates and dose reconstructions, but do not require a response. 

This report presents a review of ORAUT-PROC-0097. In addition, since ORAUT-PLAN-0010, 

Worker Outreach Program Plan, also has some bearing on worker outreach, it is also addressed 

in this review. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

8 of 35 

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: WORKER OUTREACH OBJECTIVES 

NIOSH was asked by the Advisory Board to develop a process for public and site expert 

participation and involvement in the development of the site profiles. In response to this request, 

NIOSH and ORAUT began to conduct worker outreach meetings throughout the DOE complex 

and at locations around AWE sites. The worker outreach meetings offer current and former 

employees the opportunity to obtain information about the site profiles and supporting 

documents, and to provide information for consideration and possible use. This process helps to 

ensure that the technical documents used in dose reconstructions contain correct and useful 

information. 

1.2 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION 

This portion of the Task 3 report is limited to the review of procedures pertaining to the worker 

outreach program. This review is represented below in Sections 2 through 7, which are followed 

by three attachments: 

•	 Section 2.0 provides a brief description of the procedures under evaluation 

•	 Section 3.0 identifies those elements of the procedure that SC&A considers positive 

strong points 

•	 Section 4.0 consists of a summary review of findings (or checklist) 

•	 Section 5.0 describes significant findings pertaining to applicable procedures 

•	 Section 6.0 describes observations about the procedure 

•	 Section 7.0 provides references 

•	 Attachment 1 presents the five questions that SC&A asked participating workers 

•	 Attachment 2 presents some worker responses to the SC&A questions 

•	 Attachment 3 includes a list of worker outreach meetings conducted by NIOSH/ORAUT 

The format of the checklist in Section 4 and the scoring system was prepared in accordance with 

SC&A procedure number SCA-PR-Task3, Rev. 1, Final, April 29, 2004, titled A Protocol for the 

Review of Procedures and Methods Employed by NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction. This SC&A 

procedure was approved by the Advisory Board. Two items, 7.3 and 7.4, have been added to this 

checklist because they were relevant to the review of this procedure. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

9 of 35 

2.0	 OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURE USED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE 

WORKER OUTREACH PROGRAM 

The Worker Outreach Program, as described in ORAUT-PLAN-0010, is divided into three 

phases. Phase 1 involves consultation with stakeholders during the research and development 

stage of the site profile: 

Soon after a team is assembled to prepare a new Site Profile, the ORAU Team’s 

Worker Outreach Group will identify unions and other advocacy groups that may 

have an interest in the Site Profile. The Worker Outreach Group will contact the 

stakeholder organizations to coordinate an informal meeting with the Site Profile 

team. The purpose of this meeting will be to introduce the purpose of the Site 

Profile and the development process, describe the kinds of information that may 

be helpful, and identify the pathway for the stakeholder organizations to provide 

documents or other useful input for the Site Profile team. (ORAUT 2004, pg. 6) 

Phase 2 involves discussions with the stakeholders at the completion of the site profile 

development. 

Once a Site Profile is approved by NIOSH-OCAS, the ORAU Team Worker 

Outreach Group will contact the stakeholder groups to arrange a meeting (or 

separate meetings, as appropriate) to discuss the content of the Site Profile and 

the methods used to develop it; to review how it will be used in dose 

reconstruction; to answer stakeholder questions and receive their feedback; and 

to remind those who wish to comment further concerning the pathway for 

receiving written comments on the Site Profile. Where there is substantial 

stakeholder interest in a Site Profile, the Worker Outreach Group may organize a 

public briefing during evening hours. Such meetings may be announced via local 

newspapers or other media, through the stakeholder organizations, and/or by 

other available means. At these meetings, stakeholder representatives and 

individual members of the public will be invited to provide written comments on 

the Site Profile. (ORAUT 2004, pg. 6) 

Phase 3 entails the review and integration of new information into a site profile already in use. 

After the Site Profile is used, new information may be provided that may impact 

the Site Profile. Because the Site Profile development teams are temporary and 

essentially cease to exist upon completion of the initial tasks, the Worker 

Outreach Group will monitor the Site Profile comments on an ongoing basis. Any 

revised Site Profile will be posted on the NIOSH OCAS web site. (ORAUT 2004, 

pp. 6–7) 

When a site profile team is established, NIOSH/ORAUT identifies labor organizations affiliated 

with the Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) site, contacts those 

organizations, and verifies contact information for local labor organization officials. In 

coordination with the labor organization, the Worker Outreach Team establishes a path forward 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

10 of 35 

and coordinates meeting arrangements. An introductory letter is sent to the stakeholder union or 

group to disseminate information regarding EEOICPA, the site profile, background information 

for the Union Outreach Specialist, and/or other information as needed. 

The stakeholders are informed in the introductory meeting (Phase I) of the types of information 

and records that are useful in developing the site profile. The union and workers are not asked to 

request records from the site, the contractors, or the company. NIOSH/ORAUT submits a 

request for recommended records and information from the site, information which will help in 

the preparation of the site profile. 

An overview of the information in the site profile is presented to stakeholders during a second 

meeting (Phase II). Workers are asked to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the site 

profile. The Worker Outreach Team solicits information from the attendees, which could be 

important to the dose reconstruction process or site profile accuracy. 

At the meeting, individuals are asked to sign an attendance roster, and printed materials are 

provided. An audio recording and meeting notes are compiled during the meeting. The meeting 

consists of a presentation, followed by a period of open discussion facilitated by 

NIOSH/ORAUT. A summary of the proceedings is compiled into draft minutes by a 

writer/editor. Final draft minutes are forwarded to the host organization(s) for review and 

comment. Following a 60-day review period, comments are evaluated and changes made to the 

meeting minutes, as necessary. NIOSH/ORAUT provides the final meeting minutes to the labor 

organization(s). The minutes are finalized after 60 days, even if no responses are received from 

the workers or their representatives. 

The Worker Outreach Team Leader (WOTL) reviews draft and final meeting minutes and 

materials and extracts comments to be entered into the WISPR database. The comments that 

have the potential to affect site profiles are communicated informally to the dose reconstruction 

group by the Task Manager during weekly conference calls. They are also communicated 

formally by e-mail to the Site Profile Team Leaders to ensure that they are taken into account. 

This process helps to ensure that data and other information provided by stakeholders are 

incorporated into the site profiles as appropriate and in a timely manner. 

The WOTL reviews written correspondence and meeting minutes and extracts comments to be 

entered into the WISPR database. A judgment is made on whether a comment requires a 

response. Items requiring response include, but are not limited to, the following (Murray 2005, 

pp. 11–12): 

•	 Point specifically to an area of a site profile or other Project document that 

the commenter feels is incorrect or inadequate. 

•	 Require an action to take place, such as looking for additional information, 

following up on an issue, or revising the site profile. 

•	 Identify new information that may not have been considered previously. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

11 of 35 

The WISPR comments are provided to Task Managers and/or the Site Profile Team Leader 

(SPTL). Responses to comments, if required, are requested within 30 days. The WOTL reviews 

the responses and determines if they are acceptable, based on the following criteria defined in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0097 (Murray 2005, pg. 12): 

•	 The response must address the comment. 

•	 The response must be technically correct. 

•	 The response must specify if the site profile needs to be revised and include 

anticipated changes. 

•	 If the site profile does not need to be revised, the response must explain the 

reason for not doing so. 

•	 The response must include a tentative schedule for completing the site profile 

revision, if applicable. 

The WOTL either accepts the response, and it is entered into the WISPR database, or sends the 

response back to the originator for further consideration. Scheduled actions are recorded as a 

part of the response and are tracked through to completion. Finally, a letter is sent to the union 

organizations identifying specific changes to the site profile that resulted from stakeholder input. 

All the comments are entered into the WISPR database, whether or not they may affect dose 

reconstruction or the site profile. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

12 of 35 

3.0 STRENGTHS OF ORAUT-PROC-0097 

The following strengths were noted in the procedure and the WISPR database used to track 

worker comments: 

•	 There is a specified procedure for capturing the information provided and recording it in 

a computer database. 

•	 Scheduling attempts to accommodate workers by providing both daytime and evening 

meetings. 

•	 NIOSH/ORAUT now conducts worker outreach meetings prior to the release of a site 

profile. This was not initially the case. 

•	 An audiotape is made of the interviews. 

•	 There is a specific process for incorporating worker input to correct errors in the site 

profile or to make other revisions based on worker-provided information that is deemed 

relevant to dose reconstruction. 

Examples of the kinds of comments that could lead to a revision of a site profile are provided. 

Except for the issues identified below, the procedure appears to be complete and well 

documented. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

13 of 35 

4.0 PROCEDURE REVIEW CHECKLIST 

Table 1 is a checklist of objectives that SC&A designed under the first phase of Task Order 3 to 

evaluate whether the procedure adequately supports the dose reconstruction process. Because 

this is a partial review due to the unavailability of the WISPR database at the time of the 

preparation of this report, entries should be regarded as partial and are subject to revision. 

SC&A was only recently trained on the use of WISPR, and should be in a position to review it 

during the closeout process, if such a review is desired by the Work Group. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

14 of 35 

Table 1. Procedure Review Outline/Checklist* 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0097 Effective Date: 12/29/2005 

Document Title: Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program 

Reviewer: Kathryn Robertson-DeMers/Arjun Makhijani 

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* * 

Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which the procedure supports a process that is expeditious and timely for 

dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 The portions of the 

procedure related to 

scheduling and 

documenting worker 

outreach meetings are 

clear. 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 

5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 

4 Procedure emphasizes 

outreach to union 

representatives and 

should be expanded to 

include all workers and 

stakeholders. 

There is no provision 

for classified interviews. 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part of 

the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

3 There is linkage 

between ORAUTOTIB-0097 and 

ORAUT-PROC-0031, 

Site Profile and 

Technical Basis 

Document Development. 

This is the only 

procedure that requires 

destruction of 

information, i.e., the 

audiotapes of the 

meetings are destroyed 

after finalization of the 

minutes. (See also 7.3) 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

15 of 35 

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* * 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 

4 Some guidance is 

provided in relation to 

which comments require 

a response. 

There is some room for 

subjective judgment as 

to who is included in the 

worker outreach 

program. A de facto 

two-track system—one 

governed by ORAUTPROC-0097 for labor 

organizations, and one 

for site experts like 

health physicists— 

appears to exist. 

However, the site expert 

track is not formally 

addressed in the 

procedure. 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances where a 

more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, does 

the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which the procedure accounts for all potential exposures and ensures that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data in instances where the POC is not 

evidently clear. 

3.1 Assess quality of data sought via interview: ----

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? 4 The procedure does not 

explicitly require 

worker outreach 

meetings for all sites 

where site profiles are 

being prepared, but it 

refers to ORAUTPLAN-0010, which has 

such a specification. 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit unforeseen 

lines of inquiry? 

4 Worker outreach 

meetings are specific to 

a particular site. In 

some cases, the location 

of the meeting solicits 

workers from other 

facilities. NIOSH 

should make an effort to 

put the correct SPTL in 

contact with the 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

16 of 35 

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* * 

Comments 

participant. 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it free 

of bias? 

3 This procedure clearly 

focuses on union and 

advocate organizations 

and does not define a 

method for establishing 

contact with other 

stakeholders (e.g., 

former and current 

nonunion personnel). 

Although the procedure 

requires conflict of 

interest disclosures for 

the WOTL, these are 

not made available to 

participants either in 

writing or on the 

appropriate web site. 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? 4 This procedure does not 

provide a mechanism 

for all stakeholders to 

provide comments. 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required under 

the Privacy Act? 

5 

3.2 Assess whether the procedure adequately addresses generic as well 

as site-specific data pertaining to: ----

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In vivo/In vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations. 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 

N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined in 

42 CFR 82.2? 

N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 

N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 

N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 

N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of random 

sampling in developing a final distribution? 

N/A 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

17 of 35 

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* * 

Comments 

7.0 Assess procedure for striking a balance between the need for technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 

N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 

N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure require records retention to ensure accuracy and 

verifiability of the substance of the interviews? 

1 The procedure requires 

the audiotapes of the 

interviews to be 

destroyed after the 

minutes are finalized. 

Minutes may be 

finalized without an 

affirmative sign-off 

from the interviewees or 

their representatives, 

though such a response 

is sought. 

7.4 Does the procedure treat employees on a level playing field as 

potential sources of expert information and experience? 

2 There is a two-track 

process of interviews 

seeking site expert 

information. One is 

formal and relates 

mainly to unions. It is 

the subject of PROC0097. The other is 

informal and appears to 

concern interviews with 

HP personnel and others 

whom NIOSH regards 

as site experts. There is 

no formal 

documentation 

procedure for these 

interviews. 

* The original checklist, extending through to item 7.2 (inclusive), was written for reviews of procedures relating 

directly to dose reconstruction. Items 7.3 and 7.4 have been added to this check list, since they cover topics that are 

important to the procedure review and are the subject of SC&A’s findings.
 

** Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 

4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

18 of 35 

5.0 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS PERTAINING TO PROCEDURE 

Finding 1: The procedure is deficient because it does not require the audiotapes of the 

outreach meetings to be archived. In addition, the audiotapes are destroyed after the 

minutes of the outreach meetings are finalized. 

As a part of this review, SC&A asked several stakeholders questions related to their participation 

in the worker outreach meetings. The questions are listed in Attachment 1, followed by the 

responses in Attachment 2. Responses to these questions indicate that many workers found the 

information portion of the meeting helpful. The workers, however, often feel that many of the 

comments provided in these meetings are disregarded or misrepresented. Feedback from the 

workers indicates that comments are not effectively being resolved. For example, one worker 

provided the following comment related to their experience at a worker outreach meeting 

(SPFPA 2007). 

While attending the meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, my recollection of the meetings 

were: they were designed to informationalize the workers that attended. Not a 

bad meeting in that respect. But, Larry Elliott tried his best to convince us that he 

was all for the workers while simultaneously ignoring what we were telling him 

about our exposures. I would say that everyone had time to speak, but as I said 

most of the information that was presented from the workers was ignored. 

Similar comments were communicated to SC&A during site expert interviews conducted at 

various facilities. As a result, SC&A recommends that a feedback meeting or loop be added to 

supplement the current procedures. This would generate confidence in the NIOSH approach to 

workers’ comments and alleviate stakeholder concerns. 

As a result of not having access to the WISPR database at the time of our investigations, SC&A 

was unable to determine whether these comments are generally valid, reflect what is in the 

database, or are personal impressions not corroborated by the content of the database. We 

recommend review of the WISPR database by the Work Group during the comment resolution 

process for this procedure. 

However, the fact that at least some interviewees believe that their information was disregarded 

or misrepresented indicates gaps in the process of finalizing the minutes of the meetings. These 

gaps include a lack of a provision for an affirmative sign-off by interviewees. 

The procedure requires that draft minutes be sent back to the union for review. There is a 60-day 

time limit for a response. Minutes are finalized whether or not a response is received. The 

procedure contains no requirement for a follow-up call prior to the deadline as a reminder or for 

receiving comments via telephone. Furthermore, the procedure prescribes the destruction of the 

audiotapes after the finalization of the minutes. This creates the potential for the finalization of 

the minutes without worker input, and there would be no way to resolve issues that arise 

regarding omissions and misrepresentation. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

19 of 35 

Finding 2: The procedure does not address follow-up discussions with particular workers 

and how these are documented. The final letter indicating how worker input resulted in 

changes to the site profile is only provided to the union organization, rather than each worker 

attending the meeting. 

Finding 3: There are no provisions for soliciting comments from workers who are not able 

to physically attend meetings. 

Finding 4: The procedure seems to focus on outreach meetings with labor organizations, 

though the purpose of the meetings is to obtain worker input and inform all workers. 

The intent of the procedure is to obtain “comments from former and current DOE and AWE 

employees that might result in modifications to site profiles and dose reconstructions” (pg. 4). 

ORAUT-PLAN-0010 also requires broad outreach. However, the procedure appears to primarily 

emphasize labor organizations in the specific steps that are prescribed for organizing the 

meetings: 

Senior Outreach Specialist and/or Union Liaison 

6.1.1 Identifies the labor organizations that are or were affiliated with a DOE or 

AWE site. These labor organizations can be current or historic. 

6.1.2 Contacts the international and/or national labor organizations, as 

appropriate. 

6.1.3 Works with these organizations to identify current local officials for all 

labor organizations affiliated with the site and verifies contact information (i.e., 

mailing addresses, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses) for the local 

labor organization official(s). [pg. 6] 

NIOSH/ORAUT has made a considerable effort in reaching out to union organizations through 

the worker outreach process. Attachment 3 includes a list of worker outreach meetings 

conducted by NIOSH/ORAUT from 2004–2006. Worker outreach meeting minutes for 27 sites 

were reviewed to identify if stakeholders are adequately being included in the worker outreach 

process. Sites included both DOE and AWE facilities. Multiple worker outreach meetings were 

conducted at most sites. The 59 meetings compiled in Attachment 3 included the following: 

37 Union organizations 

17 Building and Construction Trades Councils/Unions 

4 Advocacy groups and representatives 

2 Current and former workers for specific time periods or locations 

2 No documentation available. 

A special emphasis on union organizations is appropriate, since they represent large numbers of 

workers. However, the procedure is too limited in not requiring outreach to employees with 

specific types of expertise and job experience, even if they are not members of labor 

organizations. Advocacy groups are mentioned and, as can be seen, have been included, but the 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

20 of 35 

steps of the procedure only require contact with labor organizations. The actual record also 

shows that few non-union site experts are included in the worker outreach program. SC&A 

recognizes that NIOSH and ORAUT contact health physicists and others as part of the 

development of site profiles, but that the process of outreach is not included in the procedure 

under review. As a result, there is a de facto process of contacting site experts that is not 

formalized as to its extent and its documentation, and there is a formal procedure that does not 

explicitly include personnel who are not members of labor organizations. This seems to be a 

two-track mode—one formal and one informal—for conducting worker outreach (see Finding 5 

below). 

The non-union population can be a majority at some sites (i.e., ANL-W). Although the SPTL 

appears to meet with site EEOICPA coordinators and radiological control staff, these discussions 

are not routinely documented and included as a part of the worker outreach process. In order to 

gain a full understanding of operations occurring at the site, the worker outreach program should 

include union and non-union workers. In addition, although survivors do not have operational 

experience at the DOE or AWE sites, they should also be allowed the opportunity to share 

information that may be pertinent to the site profile development process. 

The focus on labor organizations appears to have a large logistical component. NIOSH/ORAUT 

places a considerable portion of the burden for arranging worker outreach meetings and 

contacting former and current workers on the stakeholder organization. Prior to scheduling a 

worker outreach meeting, NIOSH/ORAUT identifies labor organizations and/or advocacy groups 

affiliated with the DOE or AWE site and contacts those organizations. In cooperation with the 

labor organization and/or advocacy groups, the Worker Outreach Team coordinates meeting 

arrangements. The stakeholders are asked to make arrangements for meeting locations and 

contact current and former workers inviting them to the meeting. NIOSH/ORAUT plays a 

passive role in this process. The financial burden of obtaining a meeting place and contacting 

workers is placed on the stakeholder in cases where a site or union location is not available. 

Union organizations naturally concentrate their efforts on former and current union members. 

Finding 5: A two-track system appears to exist for obtaining employee and site expert 

input. One track is formal, governed by ORAUT-PROC-0097, with documentation 

requirements, while the other track is informal and appears to be intended as a means to 

obtain information from site experts 

ORAUT-PROC-0097 focuses primarily on obtaining information through labor organizations. 

The process for arranging and conducting the interviews is formalized, as is the procedure for the 

documentation of the interviews. However, ORAUT-PROC-0097 does not appear to explicitly 

seek input from site experts, such as health physics personnel or employees with experience in 

specific job categories. NIOSH and ORAUT have interviewed such site experts, but the 

consultation process does not appear to be formalized. Issues related to adequacy of 

documentation of some of these interviews have been raised in SC&A findings in the past, as in 

the case of the Nevada Test Site (SC&A 2006, Issue 25). 

Therefore, there appears to be a two-track system for soliciting employee and site expert input, 

one for labor organizations (and possibly other groups) and one for those whom NIOSH and 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

21 of 35 

ORAUT consider to be site experts. SC&A is not aware of any formalized procedures for who is 

to be interviewed in the latter category or how those interviews are to be documented. SC&A 

has found workers who have experience in specific jobs and claimants who have extensive 

knowledge of site documentation. In addition, SC&A has found health physics professionals 

from the site and those familiar with the site in other ways to be very useful as interviewees. 

This de facto two-track procedure may detract from the soundness of the interview process and 

its documentation, especially for site experts who are contacted under the informal process not 

governed by PROC-0097. 

The process of interviewing workers as part of ORAUT-PROC-0097 appears to be somewhat 

confusing, because meetings are held for a multitude of purposes; i.e., to provide information to 

employees, which would tend to elicit discussion about individual claims, and to solicit 

information and data from site experts (including employees and former employees) to help 

ORAUT draft site profiles. SC&A understands that claimants and potential claimants need to be 

informed about site profiles and other NIOSH documentation, and that a certain efficiency could 

be achieved by holding meetings that have multiple objectives. However, the purposes are quite 

distinct, and combining them risks pushing one or the other purpose to the margins, creating the 

potential for confusion. It also creates the potential for one part of the agenda to squeeze out the 

other. 

If the two tasks are scheduled for the same trip, the agenda should be split into two parts. 

NIOSH/ORAUT presentations and claimant concerns and questions regarding their claims could 

be addressed in one part of the agenda, while site expert input (perhaps from some of the same 

people, but also from people who have no claims or concerns about their claims) could be 

addressed in the other. 

SC&A also recommends that NIOSH/ORAUT use questions to guide the discussion with 

workers. For those sites which are under evaluation for a Special Exposure Cohort, 

NIOSH/ORAUT tends to come prepared with some questions; however, this is not the case for 

the introductory and site profile “roll-out meetings” conducted to obtain worker information. 

Asking questions often triggers memories and allows NIOSH/ORAUT to benefit from 

information that may not otherwise become available. Questions should be general enough to 

solicit the input of workers, yet specific enough to obtain pertinent information. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

22 of 35 

6.0 OBSERVATIONS 

(1) The procedure does not require disclosure of conflict of interest during worker 

meetings 

In accordance with ORAUT-PLAN-0010, individuals involved with the worker outreach 

program are required to disclose employment with DOE and contractors: 

All Project personnel will be required to disclose prior DOE/contractor 

employment and other associations and to agree to recuse themselves from dose 

reconstruction activities that might result in potential conflicts of interest (Murray 

2004, pg. 8) 

PROC-0097 does not require a verbal disclosure of conflict of interest on the part of the 

interviewer, if it exists, to the workers at the start of outreach meetings. 

(2) There is no provision for classified outreach meetings. 

The worker outreach procedure does not include provisions for conducting classified worker 

outreach meetings. Workers are told not to disclose information if it may be classified. For 

some facilities (e.g., Y-12 Plant, LANL, LLNL, Pantex, the gaseous diffusion plants, IAAP, 

etc.), this could limit access to potentially important information, some of which may be 

unclassified, because the interviewees are concerned about revealing classified information. 

Classified discussions can provide valuable information on the operations conducted at the 

facility and the associated monitoring practices. The option of meeting in a secure location 

during Phase I meetings used to solicit information for the site profile should be offered to 

participants and planned accordingly. This might facilitate a more open discussion regarding 

what occurred at the site and allow NIOSH/ORAUT to obtain information they would otherwise 

not obtain. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

23 of 35 

7.0 REFERENCES 

42 CFR Part 82. “Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule.” May 2, 2002. 

ABRWH 2003. Eighteenth Meeting Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

Volume 2, St. Louis, Missouri. October 29, 2003. 

Bryne, J.M., 2007. Site Profile Technical Basis Document Development, ORAUT-PROC-0031, 

Revision 2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. August 17, 2007. 

Hinnefeld, S.L., 2006a. E-mail communication from S.L. Hinnefeld of NIOSH to J. Mauro, J. 

Fitzgerald, and K. Robertson-DeMers of SC&A, WISPR Access and Training. October 4, 2006. 

Hinnefeld, S.L., 2006b. E-mail communication from S.L. Hinnefeld of NIOSH to Kate Kimpan 

of ORAUT, FW: Whispers Training. May 10, 2006. 

Kimpan, K., 2006. E-mail communication from K. Kimpan of ORAUT to K. Robertson-DeMers 

of SC&A, Re: Whispers Training. February 21, 2006. 

Mauro, J., 2006. E-mail communication from S.L. Hinnefeld of NIOSH and L. Wade of CDC, 

FW: Whispers Training. May 9, 2006. 

Murray, W.E. and McDougall, V.S., 2004. Worker Outreach Program Plan, ORAUT-PLAN0010, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 16, 2004. 

Murray, W.E., 2005. Conduct of the Worker Outreach Program, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. December 29, 2005. 

SC&A 2005. The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, Revision 0. S. Cohen & Associates, McLean, Virginia. 

January 2005. 

SC&A 2006. Issue Resolution Matrix Based on the SC&A Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for 

the Nevada Test Site, S. Cohen & Associates, McLean, Virginia. January 13, 2006. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

24 of 35 

ATTACHMENT 1: SC&A QUESTIONS TO PARTICIPATING WORKERS 

(1) Describe how the worker outreach meetings were set up and how individuals were 

notified of the meeting. 

(2) Describe what occurred at the meeting. 

(3) How much time was given for worker comments? Do you feel this was an adequate 

amount of time? 

(4) Was the worker outreach meeting beneficial to the workers? 

(5) Do you feel comments given by workers were considered in the development of the site 

profile and in dose reconstruction? 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

25 of 35 

ATTACHMENT 2: WORKER INPUT TO SC&A QUESTIONS ON THE 

WORKER OUTREACH PROCESS 

Questions were sent to several stakeholders showing active participation in the EEIOCPA 

process representing sites across the country. The individuals responding to these questions 

represent workers, petitioners, and worker representatives. They were asked to describe their 

participation in planning and scheduling meetings, what occurred at the meeting, and whether 

they felt worker comments were adequately considered. In some cases, they indicated they were 

not invited to worker outreach meetings. Names have been removed to maintain the privacy of 

the individual.1 Responses are provided verbatim as received via e-mail. 

IAAP (Worker Representative) 

I have not been involved in one of these since the IAAP meetings about 4 years ago. At that 

time I was furious with NIOSH as they clearly intimidated workers by saying that ‘if there was 

any question about security issues’ they shouldn’t say anything at that time and that NIOSH 

would arrange for a Secured Facility in which to take their interviews. 

I made a big stink then and there about this being totally inappropriate and we then went ahead 

and had a good meeting. That introduction actually seemed to inspire the workers to speak up. 

Pantex (Former Worker/Petitioner) 

I was not asked to participate in the site profile meetings. As far as I know, the meetings were 

set up by [Name]. I believe she may have asked [Name] for his input, but I am not sure. The 

site profile is merely a snapshot in time today and does not represent past practices or show early 

assembly buildings, etc. 

Rocky Flats (Worker Representative) 

Well, my answer is going to be very simple. I was never notified of the NIOSH worker outreach 

program. It appears that only union members were invited. Not former union members nor non 

union members. 

Bethlehem Steel (Former Worker) 

First there wasn't a worker outreach until 15 months after our TBD was approved by NIOSH. 

(1) The meeting was set up by myself, (Claimant) and the meeting hall expenses were paid 

for by 2 claimants. We notified claimants by group meetings and local newspapers. 

1

 Although some individuals have indicated that their names may be used in this document, HHS has 

redacted certain names prior to public dissemination in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. These 

names, however, were made available to Advisory Board members. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

26 of 35 

(2) We had a 2-hour session scheduled for claimant (not site experts) comments, but 

NIOSH's dose reconstruction presentation took up 1 hour and 45 minutes until I asked 

that the claimants be allowed to speak. The evening session was also dominated by a 

Power Point presentation on dose reconstruction by NIOSH. From this meeting, a July 1, 

2004 meeting was set up to meet with site experts. NIOSH rep. showed no interest in our 

comments. When a claimant inquired about the dose reconstruction, the reps comment 

was "we have all the evidence to create a dose reconstruction that we need." SC&A was 

the only one questioning the site workers and showed interest in the meeting. 

(3) No, claimants or site experts need more time when the information is 55 years old. 

(4) Absolutely not. 

(5) No, they could not have been in the BSC dose reconstruction because the TBD was 

approved 15 months prior to any meetings with NIOSH. 

Portsmouth (Worker/Union Representative) 

While attending the meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio my recollection of the meetings were that they 

were designed to informationalize the workers that attended. Not a bad meeting in that respect. 

But, Larry Elliott tried his best to convince us that he was all for the workers while 

simultaneously ignoring what we were telling him about our exposures. I would say that 

everyone had time to speak, but as I said most of the information that was presented from the 

workers was ignored. The meeting was beneficial to the effect that we got an eyeful of just how 

that outfit was going to work. Dose Reconstruction was considered, but as we told Larry, you 

can’t do that at the Portsmouth Facility. 

Dow Madison (8/21–22/2006) and General Steel Industries (January 24–25, 2007) 

(Worker Representative) 

----- Original Message -----

From: [Name Redacted] 

To: spectrumtech@att.net 

Cc: [Name Redacted] 

Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 7:23 AM 

Subject: Re: Blockson Meeting reply (Q&A FYI) reply 

Kathy, 

You have my permission to use my responses if my name is left associated with them. I specifically grant 

the Privacy Act office who will be handling this to use my name. In fact, I insist they do. I will be happy to 

sign a CDC release form to this effect if one is sent to me. These are direct quotes from me and should 

be attributed. My view is they have more weight if they are attributed to me than if they are presented 

anonymized. The credibility of the source does matter and my group SINEW have a long-running 

disagreement with the CDC/ATSDR Atlanta FOIA office on this exact point that Paul Ziemer and Larry 

Elliott are both well aware of. The CDC/ATSDR FOIA/PA office has been uncooperative in disclosing the 

bass for a need to redact when the person's name they are redacting waives this requirement explicitly in 

writing. Also, this office is very inconsistent and sometimes redacts my name on Public Comments and at 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

27 of 35 

other times, without explanation, does not. I hope you understand. Obviously, I feel very strongly about 

this point. If my name is removed I will view this as censorship, plain and simple. 

 -- [Name Redacted] 9/15/07 

p.s. By the way, at the actual Blockson 9/12/07 meeting in Joliet the three process-related NIOSH 

questions posed to attendees yielded very little new information. Jim Neton chose not to read the actual 

questions and got what I expected: not asked, not answered. Also, since the meeting was not recorded, 

and audience responder comments often overlapped with one another, it would be impossible for Mary 

Elliott's notes to accurately reflect the content of the meeting. 

----- Original Message -----

From: [Name Redacted] 

To: spectrumtech@att.net 

Cc: [Name Redacted] 

Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:55 AM 

Subject: Fwd: EEOICPA - SC&A Review of NIOSH/ORAU Worker Outreach Procedure reply 

Kathy, 

My answers related to NIOSH-sponsored Outreach meetings held 8/21-22/06 for the Dow Madison and 

General Steel Industries, IL AWE sites, and on January 24 and 25, 2007, for the Blockson Chemical AWE 

site in Joliet, IL are below in blue. These are meetings I participated in and helped to plan and organize, 

so I am very certain of many of the details. Hope these replies are helpful. Would you please make sure 

these responses are shared with Mike Gibson and his Advisory Board (ABRWH) work group on Outreach 

meetings? 

Best wishes,

 -- [Name Redacted] 8/10/07 

In a message dated 8/7/07 9:53:11 AM, spectrumtech@verizon.net writes: 

Good Morning - 

SC&A is currently in the process of reviewing the NIOSH procedure on conducting the worker outreach 

program. I have a couple of questions for each of you which will assist us in completing this evaluation. 

1) Describe how the worker outreach meetings were set up and how individuals were notified of the 

meeting. 

[Worker Representative]: 

(a) At GSI and Dow: Direct communications between OCAS/NIOSH and SINEW were primarily 

with Laurie Ishak Breyer, the SEC Counselor. From SINEW (Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers) 

myself, [Name redacted] (husband of GSI survivor-claimant and future GSI co-petitioner), and 

[Name redacted] of SimmonsCooper (attorney for law firm in East Alton, IL, that provides 

extensive pro bono services to assist the GSI and Dow workers), helped make most of the 

arrangements, including locating a venue (Holiday Inn, Collinsville, IL), hiring and paying for 

Pohlman court reporters and the resulting DVD videos and hard copy and electronic verbatim 

transcripts (redacted forms of the latter are now posted on www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ website and 

original unredacted material is at NIOSH with clear instructions form us to share them with all 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

28 of 35 

agencies who might be involved with Dow or GSI dose reconstruction or SEC activities: SC&A, 

ABRWH, DOL, DOE, ORAU, Battelle), specifying the need for a screen and projector for 

Powerpoint presentations, helping to arrange the microphone system, among many other types of 

assistance that we provided to NIOSH to facilitate these meetings. 

 Notification of participants: NIOSH was very passive about this and SINEW made all of these 

contacts and bore all of the mailing and postage expenses. NIOSH never offered to send out 

meeting notices to claimants, or to take out newspaper ads, or to defray costs for the court 

reporter, transcripts and video footage, which would have been appropriate and useful in SINEW's 

view. We worked from a previously compiled EXCEL mailing list of EEOICPA claimants from both 

parties kept at SimmonsCooper (SC). Staff personnel from SC handled all of the mailing and 

extensive phone contacts to ensure that participants knew about the meeting and would attend. It 

was our expertise and familiarity with the workers that assured the most knowledgeable GSI and 

Dow workers attended and gave testimony. I even had to suggest to Larry Elliott that [Name 

redacted] of ATI be allowed to attend as the steelworker union advocate since both GSI and Dow 

were heavy duty Steelworkers union sites. [Name redacted] and I made certain that [Name 

redacted] met [Name redacted], the local district Steelworkers Union representative. SC staff 

logged people in on the days of the meetings (4 sessions were held over two days, August 21 and 

22, 2006). We provided the attendance sheets to NIOSH. 

 Note that we had held two previous worker meetings at both Dow and GSI to gather information 

for affidavits that have now been submitted to the Board, NIOSH and SC&A (7/7/06, 7/21/06, 

8/11/06). SC&A held another worker meeting at Dow on June 20, 2007, that SINEW arranged. All 

meetings had court reporter transcripts that were arranged for and paid for by SC/SINEW. We 

have given the 6/20/07 SC&A transcript to John Mauro and to Chick Phillips, who led the meeting. 

Grady Calhoun from NIOSH/OCAS attended the 6/20/07 meeting held at SimmonsCooper in East 

Alton, IL. 

(b) At Blockson: My primary contact was Mary Jo Zacchero, who was an independent 

contractor who helped ORAU, ATI and NIOSH set up and conduct worker Outreach meetings. I 

interacted with several members of her team from those organizations as arrangements for the 

Blockson Outreach meeting proceeded. My part of meeting pre-arrangements included 

submission of a Microsoft Powerpoint file with specific topics to be addressed, which was then 

edited and expanded by NIOSH and reformatted with their slide format and approved for use by 

NIOSH. An explicit goal of the January 24-25, 2007 Outreach meeting was to gather more data 

from Building 55 workers. Only 5 workers had been interviewed for the previous site profile and 

none had worked in Bldg. 55. I therefore suggested that NIOSH and DOL collaborate in identifying 

Bldg. 55 claimants and send them contact letters. NIOSH had mailed meeting notices to only 21 

workers. Through Ms Zacchero, I persuaded DOL to send additional meeting invitations and 

notices that eventually more than doubled the number of workers contacted. I was astounded to 

see the reluctance of NIOSH and DOL share database information on claimants with each other. 

Especially because they were both implementing EEOICPA! It reminded me of the deplorable 

situation that existed with communications between CIA and the FBI related to 9/11. Specifically, 

NIOSH claimed it had no access to the DOL claimant file. DOL never did get or use the list of 21 

NIOSH invitees. NIOSH did locate a venue, hired a court reporter (but declined to do video) who 

was used only on Jan. 24 and then was dismissed for the Jan. 25 session (reason not disclosed to 

me), arranged for a projector to show the Powerpoints that never worked, and had [Name 

redacted] moderate the sessions (he insisted). The first night the prepared questions were asked 

and answered and then workers gave free form testimony. The second night the questions were 

dropped and the single new worker just gave free form testimony. The court reporter had been 

dismissed. Only Mary Elliott was left to take notes of the second night. Wanda Munn attended 

both nights but was essentially an observer. I was allowed to interact with and address the 

workers and was allowed be at the front table both nights. Robert Stephan was also allowed to 

ask questions and to facilitate the discussion of key points. Robert and I both felt that [Name 

redacted] was very passive in his role as moderator and that many key points were poorly 

developed and needed our direct intervention. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

29 of 35 

2) Describe what occurred at the meeting. 

[Worker Representative]:

 General comment, for GSI, Dow and Blockson both NIOSH and SINEW stressed that the major 

goal was to hear from site experts rather than to discuss individual claims. The testimony was 

heavily weighted toward presentation of site operations facts with minimal digression into 

aspects of individual claims. 

(a) GSI and Dow. SC staffers assisted with sign up and provided the sign up sheets to NIOSH. 

A moderately large meeting room was filled up with workers, claimants, and interested visitors 

such as union representative [Name redacted] from the Steelworkers. I was allowed to make a 

brief Powerpoint presentation (also provided to NIOSH, the Board and to SC&A) following opening 

remarks by Stuart Hinnefeld and introduction of [Name redacted], Laurie Breyer and David Allen 

(NIOSH). A single microphone was then passed along the rows from front to back of the meeting 

room. Each session lasted several hours. Everyone present got a chance to make their input, no 

one was cut off. The entire proceeding was captured by the court reporter firm, Pohlman. [Name 

redacted] and [Name redacted] were allowed to interact and solicit added details from the 

workers. NIOSH people also asked questions and viewed exhibits that were presented by several 

of the workers. Exhibits included full color printouts of my initial Powerpoint slides (copy to 

NIOSH), documents, plant maps and a small Magnaflux unit. I showed an aerial map poster of the 

Dow Madison plant site. The testimony presented was very rich and detailed. NIOSH commented 

afterwards that the fact that most workers held multiple jobs throughout the plant would bolster 

an SEC recommendation. Lavon Rutherford informed me on September 6, 2006, that Dow Madison 

would be recommended by NIOSH for an 83.14 SEC. Dow SEC-00079 became law on July 22, 2007, 

and 53 claims at NIOSH were sent to DOL for further processing and compensation under 

EEOICPA 2000. 

(b) Blockson. Please refer to answer #5 and to the 1/24/07 transcript and the 1/25/07 minutes 

now posted on the OCAS website. Note the 1/24/07 transcript was first posted unredacted, then 

was withdrawn and redacted, and finally was posted again on the OCAS website several months 

later. I believe that only 11 worker-site experts attended, only one of whom worked directly inside 

Bldg. 55. New information was gathered that bolstered the factual basis for extending the SEC 

Class to ancillary phosphate extraction operations that occurred outside Bldg. 55. Workers also 

provided new details about Bldg. 55 operations. Th avoidance of the use of questions on Jan. 25 

and the lack of availability of a working projector were a detriment to the meeting. [Name 

redacted] was not an affective moderator and discussion leader. The Blockson SEC was denied at 

the July 2007 ABRWH meeting. 

3) How much time was given for worker comments? Do you feel this was an adequate amount of time? 

[Worker Representative]: 

Ample time was allocated for workers to give testimony at all GSI Dow and Blockson worker 

outreach sessions. I observed no one being cut off or their time to speak limited in any way by 

anyone. That was a strong positive. Sessions ran 2-3 hours each and extended over two days and 

included two sessions each date to accommodate worker schedules and make sure that as many 

as possible attended the meetings. 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

30 of 35 

4) Was the worker outreach meeting beneficial to the workers? 

[Worker Representative]: 

Allowing workers to provide input is good because it makes them feel part of the process. The 

real worker benefit, however, is to actually have their testimony make a difference in the content 

of key technical documents and to facilitate them getting accurate dose reconstructions and fair 

technical documents, especially site profiles that govern DRs, and balanced evaluations of SEC 

petitions. It is clear to SINEW and to me, personally, that counterbalancing the excellent quality of 

the worker testimony is a serious reluctance, resistance and even aggressive denial by NIOSH, 

SC&A and the Board of (a) truly accepting as legitimate worker evidence that rivals primary 

technical documents for validity, and (b) incorporating worker testimony into the DR and SEC 

decision-making process. Worker testimony is routinely disregarded and misrepresented in the 

overly brief summaries and minutes that ATI and NIOSH routinely generate from worker Outreach 

meetings. SC&A should recommend that verbatim transcripts of the entire meeting should be 

mandatory. A one month transcript delivery deadline should be imposed as a contractual term on 

court reporters. I believe the Outreach meetings are often used by NIOSH perversely to discredit 

the validity of worker testimony. NIOSH will deny this, however, they should be asked by SC&A to 

give concrete examples of instances where worker testimony was used to positively modify a site 

profile or key technical document that led to an SEC being granted, or a Class definition extended, 

or to increased compensation of claims under the DR process. 

(a) Dow-specific comments: NIOSH, DOL and DOE are currently refusing to validate Dow 

Madison worker testimony that: (a) the plant shipped thorium alloy metal to at least four AEC 

sites: MCW, Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos, (b) that MCW uranium was processed at 

Dow Madison from 1957-62 rather than 1957-60 as included in the SEC-00079 Class definition, (c) 

that Rocky Flats plutonium billets were handled at Dow Madison after the covered period through 

1960, and (d) that possibly radioactive platinum was handled at Dow Madison and was shipped 

from there to Rocky Flats. In summary, the Dow SEC-00079 1957-60 was aided by the Outreach 

meeting. The refusal of NIOSH, DOE and DOL to accept worker testimony is damaging the chance 

of the Dow SEC-00079 being extended to cover 1961-1998 (mixed outcome of Outreach meeting).

 (b) GSI-specific comments: NIOSH ignored massive GSI worker testimony at three meetings, 

including the NIOSH Outreach 8/21-22/06 meeting, that at least six radiation sources were in use at 

GSI and that activation of metal casting was important. NIOSH refuses to issue an 83.14 SEC 

despite massive evidence that one is warranted. NIOSH has no radiation monitoring data available 

for GSI and Appendix BB is scientifically inadequate to do accurate DR. So the worker Outreach 

meeting has not discernibly helped the GSI workers despite the fact that testimony was offered 

that should have materially helped them in the form of an 83.14 SEC recommendation and in a far 

better quality Appendix BB. (outreach meeting benefit negated, DRs based on Appendix BB that 

ignores worker input will lead to decreased DR compensation) 

(c) Blockson-specific comments: The Blockson Jan. 24-25, 2007, Outreach meeting failed to 

change the outcome of the Blockson SEC petition which was denied. It is not clear whether there 

will be changes in the DR process that will lead to an increase in percentage of claims 

compensated. (Outreach meeting no change in SEC outcome or increase in compensation 

through DR) 

5) Do you feel comments given by workers were considered in the development of site profile and in dose 

reconstruction? 

[Worker Representative]: 

(a) GSI and Dow. There was no site profile at the time of the 8/21-22/07 NIOSH Outreach 

meeting for either GSI or Dow. So there was no TBD for either site for the workers to comment on. 

NIOSH never made any attempt to put any information before the workers prior to the outreach 

meeting. Their role was entirely passive. NIOSH made no attempt to share a list of topics they 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

31 of 35 

were interested in exploring with the workers beforehand. I would rate this aspect of NIOSH's 

performance as very poor and inadequate given that getting worker input into the site profile and 

other technical documents is a primary stated mission of NIOSH Outreach meetings. My 

observation form reading many NIOSH/ATI/ORAU Outreach meeting minutes and summaries is 

that NIOSH rarely focusses primarily on reviewing TBDs and one gets the impression that NIOSH 

never makes any effort to ensure that workers get copies of the relevant TBDs in time to review 

them prior to the Outreach meeting )(see below for Blockson). The General Steel Industries 

Appendix BB to Battelle TBD-6000 was finally released on June 25, 2007, almost a month after the 

Battelle Task Order 16 had expired on May 31, 2007. It was obvious that much worker testimony 

on there being six radiation sources at GSI had been ignored by document owner Sam Glover. Mr. 

[Name redacted] and I felt this was so deplorable and objectionable that we both submitted 

detailed critiques of Appendix BB to the Board, NIOSH and subsequently to SC&A in mid-July. We 

asked the Board to task SC&A to review Appendix BB and our critiques, which the Board 

complied with on 7/19/07. Mr. Elliott has promised that OCAS/NIOSH will reply to our critiques in 

writing by August 20, 2007. John Mauro cannot yet state when the SC&A review will be submitted 

to the Board ([Name redacted] spoke with him on 8/9/07 about this matter).

 Comment: SINEW believes brief Outreach meeting minutes and summaries are markedly 

inferior and inadequate compared to verbatim transcripts and video recordings such as we 

provided to NIOSH for GSI and Dow Madison. SINEW strongly believes that verbatim transcripts 

should be mandated for all NIOSH worker Outreach meetings. We also deplore the use of 

redaction as practiced by NIOSH and the CDC/ATSDR Atlanta FOIA office (Lyn Armstrong, Mary 

Griffin) for several compelling reasons: (1) we provided signed and notarized Privacy Act releases 

by Outreach participants drawn up and with prior approval by Ms. Ishak (Breyer) that were then 

refused to be honored by the CDC FOIA office without adequate explanation despite repeated 

attempts on our part to obtain such explanations. (2) Redaction destroyed much of the important 

information in the worker statements. In particular their JOB and the DATES of their employment. 

The workers specifically gave me permission to use their testimony unredacted through their 

releases, and I asked NIOSH not to redact the transcripts, yet NIOSH was unwilling to accept this. 

(3) the redaction process led to a delay of 4.5 months in posting the 8/21-22/06 Outreach 

transcripts on the OCAS website. Several groups, including ANWAG, Rocky Flats petitioners, 

asked NIOSH and SINEW to read the transcripts in the interim period. Die to redaction, one could 

not therefore judge what a person's job was or when that person was employed in relation to the 

covered period as defined by DOE. SINEW strongly objected to this practice of redaction in the 

face of excellent PA releases that were essentially ignored. To this date I have never received an 

adequate legal opinion why NIOSH ignored PA releases drawn up by a leading law firm with 

extensive court experience in supplying affidavits as documentary evidence during civil litigation. 

I believe PA issues are being overused as a delay tactic by NIOSH and the Atlanta CDC FOIA 

office. Such delays have been an issue on many interactions between SINEW and NIOSH and they 

are very detrimental to the SEC and DR processes.

 (b) Blockson. The situation at Blockson was quite different. Robert Stephan had called for the 

Blockson site profile to be reexamined to ABRWH, and hence it was withdrawn by NIOSH prior to 

the Blockson Outreach sessions in January of 2007. Worker input was specifically sought by the 

Board and Wanda Munn's Blockson Chemical work group to inform the revised Blockson site 

profile document and the revised NIOSH evaluation of the Blockson SEC (also withdrawn by 

NIOSH). I had been explicitly asked by [Name redacted] (ATI) to help organize this meeting and I 

did so primarily to complement Senator Obama's and Robert Stephan's efforts to assist the 

Blockson workers. I had suggested discussion point topics/questions to be presented to the 

workers Jan. 24-25, 2007. NIOSH had approved my questions and had added some of their own. I 

urged Mary Jo Zacchero to request NIOSH to provide all the participants with copies of the old 

Blockson site profile but my request was turned down. I judged this rejection must have been on a 

cost and effort required basis because, clearly, how could the workers provide meaningful input 

into a site profile if the site profile had been withdrawn from the OCAS website and was therefore 

not available to them prior to the meeting? To me the refusal to provide the worker-experts with 

site profile copies prior to the Outreach meeting was tantamount to an admission that NIOSH and 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
 

 

 

Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

32 of 35 

the meeting organizers were just going through the motions and, in fact, were not prepared to get 

the maximum benefit of having site expert workers critique the existing TBD (Blockson exposure 

matrix). 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

33 of 35 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy o

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 3: TARGET ORGANIZATIONS OF NIOSH/ORAUT WORKER O

MEETINGS 

(Compiled by SC&A) 

Facility Date Time Organizations Represented at Outreach Meeting 

Allied Chemical 6/22/2006 6:00 PM PACE Local 6-669 Allied Chemical 6/22/2006 6:00 PM USW Local 7- 669 Argonne National LaboratoryEast 6/2/2005 5:15 PM International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) & Local Lodge 2458 (Technician) 

Argonne National LaboratoryEast 6/2/2005 3:45 PM International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) & Local Lodge 742 (Machinists) 

Argonne National LaboratoryEast 6/3/2005 8:00 AM Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 Bethlehem Steel 6/21/2006 Bethlehem Steel Action Group 

Bethlehem Steel 7/1/2004 Bethlehem Steel Action Group Blockson Chemical Company 1/24/2007 7:00 PM Former Workers of Blockson Chemical Plant, Joliet, Illinois Bridgeport Brass 3/31/2005 United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of 

America (UAW) 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

9/25/2006 2:30 PM International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2230 

Chapman Valve 2/14/2005 5:15 PM United Electrical Radio Machine Workers (UE) Fernald 11/16/2004 9:00 AM Greater Cincinnati Bldg & Construction Trade Council, AFL- CIO, 

Numerous Other Unions 

Fernald 6/28/2004 12:15 PM Fernald Atomic Trades & Labor Council / International Guards Union 

of America 

Hanford 3/28/2007 5:00 PM Workers employed at Hanford 1942–1946 

Hanford 3/28/2007 12:30 PM Workers employed at Hanford 1942–1946 Hanford 4/22/2004 n/a PACE Local #8-0369, Fluor Hanford - Hanford Guards Union Local 

#21 

Hanford 1/13/2004 n/a Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council 

Hanford 1/14/2004 n/a Central Washington Building and Trades Council Huntington 1/5/2006 1:00 PM United Steel Workers of America (USW) Local 40 & Steelworkers 

Organization of Active Retirees 

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 7/29/2004 10:25 AM Former Workers and University of Iowa staff 
Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

34 of 35 

Facility Date Time Organizations Represented at Outreach Meeting 

Idaho National Laboratory 4/28/2004 2:05 AM Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy (PACE), Amalgamated 

Transit Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

Idaho National Laboratory 4/28/2004 9:00 AM Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council Idaho National Laboratory 10/11/2006 9:00 AM Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council AFL- CIO, Pocatello, 

Idaho 

K-25/ Y-12 4/5/2005 4:00 PM SPFPA & International Guard Union of America K-25 4/6/2005 10:00 AM PACE Local 5-288/ PACE International Kansas City Plant 10/19/2005 1:00 PM Int'l Association of Mach & Aerospace Workers (IAM) Local 778 Kansas City Plant 9/15/2004 10:15 AM SPFPA Local 251, Int'l Association of Mach. & Aerospace (Local 778

Kansas City Plant 10/19/2005 4:00 PM SPFPA Local 251 

Kansas City Plant 10/20/2005 10:00 AM Greater Kansas City Building and Construction Trades Council Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

3/22/2006 7:00 PM Society of Professional, Scientists and Engineers (SPSE), University 

Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of American, Local 9119 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

3/21/2006 10:00 AM Building and Constructions Trade Council of Alameda County

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

3/22/2006 12:00 PM SPSE 

Linde 4/18/2005 n/a PACE/USW Local 1-00277 Linde 6/27/2005 1:00 PM PACE/USW Local 1-00277 Los Alamos National Laboratory 

6/18/2005 9:15 AM SPSE Local 1663 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

6/20/2005 11:30 AM New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

8/16/2005 9:00 AM International Guard Union of American Local 69 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

8/16/2005 1:30 PM International Guard Union of American Local 69 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

8/16/2005 4:30 PM International Guard Union of American Local 69 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

8/16/2005 6:30 PM International Guard Union of American Local 69 

Mound 1/18/2005 n/a Dayton Building and Constructions Trades 

Mound 1/18/2005 n/a PACE/Guard Union 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy o

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

November 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 - Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Addendum 1 

Page No. 

35 of 35 

Facility Date Time Organizations Represented at Outreach Meeting 

Nevada Test Site 8/9/2004 1:45 PM Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters 

Nevada Test Site 8/9/2004 10:45 AM Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

11/8/2004 1:25 PM Oak Ridge National Laboratory Atomic Trades and Labor Council 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

11/9/2004 10:15 AM Knoxville Building and Construction Trades Council 

Paducah 2/10/2005 10:15 AM PACE Local 5-550 and SPFPA Local 111 Paducah 2/11/2005 10:15 AM Western Kentucky Building and Construction Trade Council Pantex 6/3/2004 12:00 AM Metal Trades CouncilPortsmouth 3/24/2004 9:45 AM Building Trades Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Portsmouth 4/16/2004 8:15 AM PACE Local Union 5-689, SPFPA Local 66 Rocky Flats Plant 6/23/2004 9:15 AM Colorado State Building and Construction Trades Council Rocky Flats Plant 6/23/2004 1:15 PM USW Local 8031 Santa Susana 4/20/2006 4:00 PM United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 1519 SRS 11/11/2003 n/a Meeting minutes have not been finalized per NIOSH website. SRS 9/14/2004 n/a Meeting minutes have not been finalized per NIOSH website. WR Grace 7/21/2005 USW Local 5-3677 Y-12 Plant 11/9/2004 1:40 PM Y-12 Atomic Trades and Labor Council Y-12 Plant 4/5/2005 4:00 PM SPFPA and International Guards Union of America 

Notice: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Notice: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy o

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.